Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sita Kumari vs Manik Chandra Sahu Judgement Given By: ... on 8 October, 2013
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH,
JABAPLUR
Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta,J.
M.Cr.C. No.11923 of 2007
Sita Kumari & others.
Vs.
Manik Chandra Sahu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.K.Bais, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri P.K.Saxena, Advocate for the respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R (ORAL)
(Passed on the 8th day of October, 2013) By way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicants have challenged the order dated 23.3.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No.214/2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan District Sidhi and also the order dated 17.10.2005 passed in Criminal Case No.481/2004 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Waidhan whereby the maintenance directed against the applicants was set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were given a maintenance of Rs.800/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- respectively vide order dated 17.6.2004 passed by the learned JMFC Waidhan and that order was affirmed in Criminal Revision No.214/2005 by the learned Additional 2 M.Cr.C..No.11923/2007 Sessions Judge Waidhan vide order dated 23.3.2007 and execution proceeding was pending before the trial Court.
3. The respondent has filed an application before the trial Court that he transferred some land to the applicant No.3, and therefore the proceeding may be dropped. The learned JMFC Waidhan vide order dated 17.10.2005 found that the execution proceeding filed by the applicant No.3 was fully satisfied, and therefore it was directed that the proceeding may be dropped. In criminal revision the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan vide order dated 23.3.2007 found that no satisfaction was done for the applicant No.1 and recovery of maintenance was to be dropped for the applicants No.2 and 3.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent has done a family arrangement of the property and he gave some of the property to the applicant No.3, who is minor. It is nowhere established that possession of the property is handed over to the applicant No.1 for the applicant No.3. The applicant No.2 was not given any share in the property. It is given to two sons of the respondent namely Ambika and Vijay Shankar. Under such circumstances, if share in the property is given to any of the applicants by family arrangement of the property, it cannot be said that 3 M.Cr.C..No.11923/2007 execution proceeding relating to maintenance order was fully satisfied for any of the applicants. It was for the respondent to move an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court if he wants to get the maintenance order cancelled or removed. But no such application was moved separately by the respondent. Under such circumstances, the learned JMFC as well the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in giving such findings.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition filed by the applicants under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. appears to be acceptable, and therefore it is hereby accepted. The order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan and the order dated 17.10.2005 passed by the learned JMFC Waidhan are hereby set aside. It is directed that execution proceeding shall continue according to its original order.
7. A copy of this order be sent to both the courts below along with their records for information and compliance.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge 08/10/2013 Ansari.